Liberals on the Indianapolis City-County Council have dusted off a 2002 proposed ordinance and reintroduced it now that the Democrats hold a 16-13 majority. The proposal went nowhere when former Councilor Karen Horseman attempted it during Republican control. Councilor Angela Mansfield may have a much better chance this time of forcing taxpayers to fund marital style benefits for homosexual partners of city employees. (Ordinance # 213 also includes unmarried heterosexuals.)
Proponents claim that this is not an attack upon marriage or an undermining of our marriage law; rather it is simply an extension of employee benefits. However, if that were true, it would have been written very differently. There wouldn't be a goofy and fraud inviting “Domestic Partner Registry” in which people attest that they are “sharing each others lives in an intimate and committed relationship.” (What does that mean? My dog probably has this view of his relationship with us.)
In other words, if you work for the city and care for your live-in 80 yr old grandmother, too bad. However, if your sleeping with some woman you met at a bar, sign her up for free taxpayer funded health insurance. (By the way, widely respected research expert Larry Bumpass, writing in Demography magazine, reports that while sixty percent of couples marrying for the first time today will remain together for life; only ten percent of domestic partnerships last even five years.)
Most importantly, the city of Indianapolis is facing some dire financial challenges. WRTV 6 recently quoted the city controller as saying that Indianapolis will likely end up with a $50 million budget shortfall by year's end. Public safety, undoubtedly a top priority, is not exempt. The same report states the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department currently has a $15 million deficit, which has impacted new recruitments of police officers, vehicle replacement and perhaps most frightening, the purchasing of body armor for patrol officers.
Is this really the time to create new taxpayer-funded city entitlements? In response to this question, the supporters (and even some weak-kneed Republicans afraid of the homosexual demands groups) have said that this is a “miniscule” annual cost of only $200,000 to $400,000 dollars. Yet, that amount would replace a lot of body armor and several police cars.
That mentality is how we got into this fiscal mess as a nation. It reminds me of what one congressman once said, “A few million here, a few million there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
It seems that Ordinance #213 may well pass. However, Mayor Gregg Ballard, who has made a point of making “public safety priority one” and fiscal discipline with cuts to all sorts of other agencies, could successfully veto it. Your contacting him is important, particularly about the cost and fraud concerns (unless the government is in the bedroom, how do you know who is a domestic partner and who just signed up for free health insurance?).
You can ask the Mayor to hold the line on spending and new entitlement programs (which always exceed budget predictions) with a phone call and email using this contact page: